PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Federal Circuit Overturns PTAB Fact-Finding Regarding Conception of Invention

Federal Circuit Overturns PTAB Fact-Finding Regarding Conception of Invention

by David Cochran | Oct 9, 2017 | Federal Circuit Appeal

By Jaime Choi and Dave Cochran In IPR2014-01198, the PTAB found that the patent owner failed to prove that the patented invention was conceived prior to the date of the prior art, and thus concluded that the patent was unpatentable.  The Federal Circuit disagreed,...
PTAB Requires Identification of Structure for Function for Means-Plus-Function Terms

PTAB Requires Identification of Structure for Function for Means-Plus-Function Terms

by David Cochran | Aug 25, 2017 | Claim Construction

By Vishal Khatri and Dave Cochran In a decision dated August 17, 2017, the PTAB denied institution of Kingston Technology Company, Inc.’s petition requesting inter partes review of claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-15, 23-28, and 36-39 of U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802 (“the ‘802...
PTAB Terminates IPR Just Under the Statutory Wire

PTAB Terminates IPR Just Under the Statutory Wire

by David Cochran | Jul 21, 2017 | Final Written Decisions

By Jaime Choi Ph.D. and Dave Cochran The patent statute requires the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to issue a final written decision within one year of instituting an Inter Partes Review (IPR). The recent case of Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. v. Westerngeo LLC...
District Court deference to PTAB regarding priority claim?  Not necessarily.

District Court deference to PTAB regarding priority claim? Not necessarily.

by David Cochran | Jun 9, 2017 | PTAB News

By Jaime Choi and Dave Cochran In instituting IPR of a particular patent, the PTAB found that the patent was not entitled to its priority claim, thus opening it up to invalidity attacks.  However, because the PTAB’s decision was not being challenged in the District...
Federal Circuit to PTAB – No 102 Gap Filling

Federal Circuit to PTAB – No 102 Gap Filling

by David Cochran | Mar 22, 2017 | Federal Circuit Appeal

By Dave Cochran In a precedential opinion dated March 14, 2017, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB, holding that in finding a claim anticipated under 35 USC § 102, the Board cannot “fill in missing limitations” simply because a skilled artisan would immediately...
« Older Entries
Next Entries »

About this blog

Categories

  • 325(d) issues
  • Amendment Practice
  • CBMs
  • Claim Construction
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Estoppel
  • Evidentiary Issues
  • Expert Witnesses
  • Federal Circuit
  • Federal Circuit Appeal
  • Final Written Decisions
  • Joinder
  • Motions Practice
  • Other News
  • Patent Eligible Subject Matter
  • Petitions
  • PGR
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Preliminary Responses
  • Prior Art Issues
  • PTAB News
  • PTAB Trial Basics
  • Real Party in Interest
  • Request for Reconsideration
  • Standing
  • Stay
  • Time Limits
  • Trial Institution
  • Uncategorized

Archives

Links

www.jonesday.com

About Jones Day's Intellectual Property Practice

Subscribe to Jones Day publications

    • Privacy
    • X
    • RSS

    The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jones Day or its clients. The posts and information provided are for general information purposes and are not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.